United States v. Torres-Romero, 537 F.3d 1155, 2008 WL 3843344 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008) (looking to law of the state of conviction to determine whether conjunctive charge means that the defendant has admitted all of the conjunctive elements), agreeing with United States v. Morales-Martinez, 496 F.3d 356, 359 (5th Cir.2007).

Doissaint v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008) (BIA cannot cure legal error in denial of petitioners motion to reopen, since motions to reopen are only for consideration of new evidence; to cure error BIA should have reconsidered original claim on the merits).

Godinez-Arroyo v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 848, 2008 WL 3927229 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2008) ("Even if Chevron deference is inappropriate, however, the BIA opinion would nevertheless be eligible for a lesser form of deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). See Mead Corp., 533 U.S. at 234, 121 S.Ct. 2164 (noting that "Chevron did nothing to eliminate Skidmore's holding that an agency's interpretation may merit some deference whatever its form, given the specialized experience and broader investigations and information available to the agency ...

Matter of Saysana, 24 I. & N. Dec. 602 (BIA Aug. 27, 2008) (a noncitizen otherwise subject to mandatory detention under INA 236(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1), but for having been released from custody prior to October, 1998, will be considered to fall within INA 236(c) if s/he is again subject to lawful non-DHS custody for any reason, regardless of whether the purpose for the detention is unrelated to the offense that triggers mandatory detention), overturned by Saysana v. Gillen, 2008 WL 5484553 (D. Mass, Dec. 1, 2008), following Thomas v. Hogan, 2008 WL 4793739 (M.D.Pa. Oct.31, 2008).

Godinez-Arroyo v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 848, 2008 WL 3927229 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2008) (Missouri conviction for second degree assault, recklessly causing serious physical injury, in violation of V.A.M.S. 565.060(3), is a crime of moral turpitude; Missouri law defines recklessness as a "conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk").

Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).

Kucana v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. Jul. 7, 2008) (court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to review motions to reopen, except for "questions of law" or constitutional questions), distinguishing Singh v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1024, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2005) (to apply INA 8 U.S.C. 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) to bar jurisdiction over orders denying motions to reopen would make the consolidation rule nonsensical), following Ali v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2007).

Matter of Rotimi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 567 (BIA 2008) (the period a lawful permanent resident spent in the United States as an applicant for asylum or while adjustment of status was pending does not count toward 7-years lawful residence requirement under INA 212(h), where the noncitizen lacked any other basis on which to claim lawful residence). http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol24/3616.pdf

Williams v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. Jul. 9, 2008) (publication in federal register of deadline upon which noncitizen previously ordered removed could move to reopen in order to apply for CAT, a new form of relief, was sufficient notice of deadline; noncitizen did not have right to actual notice of the deadline).